Tiger
Active Member
Interesting. In Europe I'd say it's close to 0% people who wear masks, probably only people with/near special conditions.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Wenche
- Start date
Interesting. In Europe I'd say it's close to 0% people who wear masks, probably only people with/near special conditions.
DanCar
Active Member
Theory: The number of people who have been covid positive, never tested, and unaware over the past few months is >5%.
Asymptomatic infection ranges are reportedly somewhere between 30-40%… so it’s a lot higher than 5% most likely.
Rate of infections is now rising pretty significantly based on waste water data. Bay Area is up nearly 200% in the past few months, positivity up 100% in a month and rising. FliRT is pretty infectious and immunity of whatever kind is quite low.
Be well.
DanCar
Active Member
Person in Mexico has died of bird flu not the strain that is common in the US. US h5n1, Mexico h5n2
www.nbcnews.com
Quote:
Mexico's Health Ministry said there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission in the case and farms near the victim's home were monitored.
Other people in contact with the person tested negative for bird flu, the health ministry and the WHO said.
WHO confirms first death in Mexico from bird flu never seen in humans
The 59-year-old was the first lab-confirmed human case of infection with A(H5N2) subtype of the virus which has been reported in poultry in the country.
www.nbcnews.com
Mexico's Health Ministry said there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission in the case and farms near the victim's home were monitored.
Other people in contact with the person tested negative for bird flu, the health ministry and the WHO said.
Last edited:
Tiger
Active Member
Person in Mexico has died of bird flu not the strain that is common in the US. US h5n1, Mexico h5n2
Quote:WHO confirms first death in Mexico from bird flu never seen in humans
The 59-year-old was the first lab-confirmed human case of infection with A(H5N2) subtype of the virus which has been reported in poultry in the country.
Mexico's Health Ministry said there was no evidence of person-to-person transmission in the case and farms near the victim's home were monitored.
Other people in contact with the person tested negative for bird flu, the health ministry and the WHO said.
Age old question, died of or with?
The sad news is that the individual who passed away in Mexico City from an H5N2 bird flu infection had several underlying health conditions, including chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes, and long-term systemic arterial hypertension. These comorbidities likely contributed to the severity of the infection and the unfortunate outcome.
When one completes a death certificate (I've done my share) you list the primary cause, then "due tos". Comorbidities go in a separate section.
So, "of."
There is a high amount of variability on how COVID “deaths” are measured in different countries.
Here in the United States, COVID death counts are actually COVID related deaths. We can argue if this is the most fair way to measure, but it was never a conspiracy, rather our practice. So if the person died 50 years or 50 minutes sooner because of COVID, in the judgement of the physician and it is listed on the death certificate, these are both counted as COVID related deaths.
There is a significant amount of variability in how deaths are characterized on death certificates and often that comes down to physician judgement.
There is an “immediate” cause of death that is required and 2-3 events/diagnoses leading to that which are requested to be completed. Significant co-morbid conditions are typically requested as well. If COVID appears anywhere among these, the CDC registers this as a COVID related death.
In the early days of treating hospitalized COVID patients, it was abundantly clear that most of these patients who died with it had it critical to their immediate demise. These days asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic COVID hospitalized patients are the rule, rather than the exception, so determining whether to include COVID on their death certificate is less of a slam dunk.
Again, nothing here is a conspiracy, but it is important that we understand how data is collected and reported so we can make appropriate comparisons and understand big picture stuff..
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/blue_form.pdf
How are COVID-19 deaths counted? It’s complicated
Here in the United States, COVID death counts are actually COVID related deaths. We can argue if this is the most fair way to measure, but it was never a conspiracy, rather our practice. So if the person died 50 years or 50 minutes sooner because of COVID, in the judgement of the physician and it is listed on the death certificate, these are both counted as COVID related deaths.
There is a significant amount of variability in how deaths are characterized on death certificates and often that comes down to physician judgement.
There is an “immediate” cause of death that is required and 2-3 events/diagnoses leading to that which are requested to be completed. Significant co-morbid conditions are typically requested as well. If COVID appears anywhere among these, the CDC registers this as a COVID related death.
In the early days of treating hospitalized COVID patients, it was abundantly clear that most of these patients who died with it had it critical to their immediate demise. These days asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic COVID hospitalized patients are the rule, rather than the exception, so determining whether to include COVID on their death certificate is less of a slam dunk.
Again, nothing here is a conspiracy, but it is important that we understand how data is collected and reported so we can make appropriate comparisons and understand big picture stuff..
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/blue_form.pdf
How are COVID-19 deaths counted? It’s complicated
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
FDA advisers urge targeting JN.1 strain in recipe for fall's COVID vaccines
Government advisers say it’s time to update the recipe for the COVID-19 vaccines Americans will receive in the fall.
apnews.com
I do wonder, as someone recently infected by a post-JN.1 variant, if it would be advisable to get a JN.1 booster. Leaning strongly towards no unless there is data presented otherwise.
If you’ve actually been infected I would wait at least 90 days before getting any booster or new vaccine.Sounds like a Novavax bailout. There are mutations common to almost all current variants not in JN.1. Not sure why they're predicting that those won't be in the Fall and Winter variants.
FDA advisers urge targeting JN.1 strain in recipe for fall's COVID vaccines
Government advisers say it’s time to update the recipe for the COVID-19 vaccines Americans will receive in the fall.
I do wonder, as someone recently infected by a post-JN.1 variant, if it would be advisable to get a JN.1 booster. Leaning strongly towards no unless there is data presented otherwise.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
I think the point he was making is that getting the booster might have a detrimental effect on your immunity. Because your system in the hypothetical proposed would be tuned well to post-JN.1 and then you’d be turning back the clock on your immune system, targeting a variant which was no longer in circulation and poorly matched to current circulating variants.
I definitely would want to see data on this. At this point it is ridiculous that we don’t have highly sophisticated trials looking at all of this.
Instead we just bail out Novavax and pretend that targeting an archaic variant is somehow going to help.
It’s pretty ridiculous and frankly upsetting.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
The new booster isn't coming out until September so no problem with that. As I said I'm probably not going to get it unless there is some evidence that it works for people who have been infected with a post JN.1 variant.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
In the unlikely event I remain a novid, I will get the garbage vaccine. Two of them.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
They also presented updates on vaccine effectiveness.
45% VE for symptomatic infection, 42% VE for hospitalization. After 120 days only 16% VE for hospitalization. Interestingly VE for infection was better after 120 days at 47%.
45% VE for symptomatic infection, 42% VE for hospitalization. After 120 days only 16% VE for hospitalization. Interestingly VE for infection was better after 120 days at 47%.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
With numbers like that, why try to do better?
Of course this is not efficacy vs. a naive baseline.
The more recent KP.2/KP.3 variants will have completely taken over all JN.1/X strains by fall… and sadly, I doubt anything other than a possible MRNA vaccine would be configured for the at the time dominant KP variants. We’ll have to see what possible short term clinical efficacy research a JN.1 / X variant based vaccine produces for the almost certainly dominant KP circulating virus.
Daniel in SD
(supervised)
Seems a bit silly to worry about getting a vaccine ready in early September when cases will probably be going down. They should worry about the wave that starts in November.
And of course over two months ago these “flirt” variants were predicted to be become dominant. Novavax could have targeted them. The goal of having all the vaccines be equally ineffective makes no sense to me.
Covid surges are basically a semi-annual event.. one in the summer and one in the winter, with the winter surge being historically, the bigger surge of infections. This year MIGHT be different with the summer surge being larger than the coming Winter surge. Due to aging natural or immunization immunity - protection.
They are all Omicron sub-variants, so vaccines for JN.x should provide solid immunity boosting ability…just not the maximum. I knew the “95% effective” reports back in 2020/2021 were mostly wrong, not mis-represented just not good environmental and test data compared to regular vaccines for Flu and other viruses. The data was valid, it just wasn’t a very good scientific test for the intended objective.
AlanSubie4Life
Efficiency Obsessed Member
This is a wild claim.
The original virus spike shape was much less smooth and more immunogenic as I understand it. And efficacy was much easier to measure vs. a naive baseline in 2020.
Those seem like two highly plausible reasons for a significant drop in real-world efficacy. The original efficacy study seemed pretty well executed.
Last edited:
Similar threads
